HC Deb 28 March 1871 vol 205 cc768-70
MR. PLIMSOLL

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the committal to prison for three months by the magistrates of South Shields, on Wednesday last, of ten seamen for refusing to proceed to Genoa in the "Epaminondas," alleged by them to be unseaworthy, and admitted by the second mate to be making two and a-half inches of water per hour; whether it is true, as alleged, that the "Epaminondas" had grounded twice before sailing, after being loaded, requiring on the first occasion the assistance of three steam tugs to get her off; whether it is true, as alleged, that the magistrates refused the application made on behalf of the men that the hearing should be postponed a day to enable them to obtain legal assistance; and, whether, if the facts are as stated in the Shields Paper, it is his intention to direct a re-hearing of the case?

MR. BRUCE

said, in reply, that the ship, which was one of 1,072 tons, and carried 22 hands, left South Shields on the 28th February. She encountered rough winds and heavy seas and reached Yarmouth Roads on the 6th March, when nine of the men told the master they would not go on any further unless he landed at the nearest port, and had the ship overhauled. The master refused to do that, as the pumping had been light, and the ship perfectly seaworthy; but, eventually, he had to return to South Shields, where the ship was examined by a master surveyor and another person, who reported it seaworthy. The men were summoned, and applied for a postponement of the case for two days, in order to secure the services of an attorney named Monckton for their defence; but as the master was anxious to go to sea by the next tide, the magistrates would only consent to postpone the case for three or four hours, as there was an attorney in Court who would undertake the defence of the men. Mr. Monckton's clerk, however, declined to accept the arrangement, and the case went on. The evidence of the master and mate showed that the ship was seaworthy, and that she had not made an undue amount of water, and the pilot gave similar testimony. The surveyor, who had examined the vessel after her return to South Shields, also stated that she was seaworthy, and that a nicer, more wholesome, and more seaworthy vessel he had never seen anywhere. It was also shown that the ship had just been repaired at an expense of £500, and one of the witnesses called for the defence—the ship's carpenter—swore that the vessel was quite seaworthy, and that the defendants had no reasonable excuse for their conduct in refusing to proceed in her. As to the ship striking the bar on her way out, the circumstance was not called to the attention of the magistrates, and the men had not insisted on it as having any important bearing on the case. He (Mr. Bruce) had no power to direct the re-hearing of a case which had been decided; all he could do was, where the facts did not warrant the punishment inflicted, to reduce the amount of the punishment; but that was very rarely done, and only then in the clearest cases, and usually with the consent of the magistrates who adjudicated. In this case, the magistrates considered the punishment was required by the frequency of the offence, and, under the circumstances, he did not feel justified in overruling their decision.